User talk:FourtySix&Two
Auslogics Disk Defrag
[edit]If you really want to spend your time re-creating a page about this software, I'd recommend first creating it in a subpage of your user page, such as ---
User:FourtySix&Two/Auslogics Disk Defrag
and then having some other admin take a look at it to determine whether it is worthy of moving into article space at that time. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is certainly doable, and is a very nice piece of information (and thanks for the link as I would not have figured that one out). Only problem is, I don't know a lot about the software, I am a software engineer myself and understand a lot about the underlying API's, I was going to create more of a stub - the software is huge and i figured the page would grow if someone would get it recreated. Can stubs be moved into "article space"?FourtySix&Two (talk)
- There are plenty of stubs in article space: so long as they're referenced, and about genuinely notable subjects, with independent references, the fact that they're short is not a problem. You may wish to review the notability guideline for products before deciding whether to undertake this creation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
April 2011
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Rebecca Black, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Novice7 (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
December 2011
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
FourtySix&Two (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It's been 8 years. I was being silly at the time with a coworker - but the account I created right after this one (FourtySix&Three of course) has not been involved in any vandalism. I just want my old username back. Thanks!
Decline reason:
Your earlier vandalism was expressly homophobic and you'll need to explicitly reject that sort of behaviour if you wish to be unblocked. Thank you for disclosing your sockpuppet account used to evade this block. As that account was created quite some time ago and does not appear to have edited anything, I believe this disclosure should count in your favour, not against you. I do believe you are a candidate for unblocking but would need to see you explicitly reject your earlier homophobic actions here. Note that WP:SO would probably apply here. Yamla (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
FourtySix&Two (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As stated in my previous appeal, it's been 8 years and I've not engaged in any for of Wikipedia vandalism. I was also asked about my apparent homophobia to which I would like to say: While I am not certain what kind of display of rejection you are referring to, I can clearly state that I do not condone homophobia in any form. In fact, the opposite is true. People are people, born the way they are further shaped by their experiences. I seriously hate to use this dead and busted argument, but I have close friends and very close gay family members - several of which confided in me once they came out that they were worried I wouldn't accept them. That really hit me hard, for years - people that called me a friend, that talked to me daily, thought I would reject them if I found out who they really were. I'm an advocate and an ally, despite any absurdities of my past. Unblock me or not, it felt good to get that out! :D FourtySix&Two (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Accept reason:
With the consent of the blocking administrator, and because you have addressed the concerns that lead to your block, I have lifted the block. Welcome back, and happy editing! Yamla (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bongwarrior: Bongwarrior, you are the blocking admin. I already believed this user was a strong candidate for unblocking, given the time that had passed and the rejection of the earlier vandalism. The follow-up to my question has fully satisfied me. The earlier inappropriate edits look to be typical silliness and nothing more. I therefore believe it would be appropriate to lift the block here. As the blocking administrator, do you have any objections? --Yamla (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Nope, no objections. Eight years is a long time. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bongwarrior: @Yamla: Many thanks!
The article TightWiki has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
I can't find any secondary coverage of this online, and there's no indication of how it meets WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Uncle Spock (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)